I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

"Lawyering to death" by Wickedpedian control freaks

Radio talk show host Bill Greene said something like the following about Wikipedia:

If you come in with an alternative point of view, a cabal of politically correct, brown-shirted fascists immediately descends upon you and reverts your entry. . .they say that your entry just gives undue weight to a point of view, a fringe theory, pseudoscience, blah blah blah . . . . They have set up these rules . . . and they lawyer you to death with the rules. They hound you out. You either change over to their point of view, or you just leave. Or they ban you . . . Don't think it doesn't happen, because it does happen all the time.

The Wikipedia article about the Discovery Institute has a section on the DI's report that charges that the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section was nearly entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU. On Aug. 27, 2007, I made the following innocent addition to this section, which is shown here as it appeared immediately after I made the addition:

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute wrote a rebuttal of the preceding criticisms of this DI study. [86]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

86. Analogical Legal Reasoning and Legal Policy Argumentation: A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU Casey Luskin, Discovery Institute, January 22, 2007

Believe it or not, this innocent, NPOV (Neutral Point of View) addition sparked a colossal argument under the title "Casey Luskin" on Wikipedia's Discovery Institute discussion page (the page is shown as it appeared just before a Wickedpedian thug named "Felonious Monk" started deleting my comments). The arbitrariness and capriciousness of the Wickedpedian control freaks' comments in this discussion are readily apparent.

Another commenter besides myself, Veritasjohn, strongly advocated mentioning Casey Luskin's rebuttal and providing a link to it, but in the end, the mention and the link were censored. The Wickedpedian control freaks refused here to give a single crumb to the opposition. These "discussions" on Wikipedia are just charades -- the Wickedpedian control freaks have no intention of ever being persuaded by others' arguments.

Below are my comments in this discussion section that were censored (the comments are not shown in order). For the contexts of the comments, go to the preceding link to an archived discussion page.

Filll said,

"The section as it now stands is a reasonable summary of the situation."

No, it is not a reasonable summary of the situation -- it is a completely one-sided summary of the situation.

One of the biggest problems -- if not the biggest problem -- with Wikipedia has been the utterly false assumption that online encyclopedias should attempt to have the NPOV and verifiability of printed encyclopedias. Because online encyclopedias can link instantly to external sites where controversial items are discussed and debated in detail, online encyclopedias can handle a much larger number of controversial items than can printed encyclopedias.

"It is not about the DI particularly."

This one is about the DI particularly because it was the DI that blew the whistle on Jones. Had it not been for the DI, this Jones' copying probably would have gone unnoticed.

You folks are really making a mountain out of a molehill by making such a big stink about adding a rebuttal from the Discovery Institute. You are contributing to Wikipedia's already bad reputation as an unreliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 22:12, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

==================================================

The bottom line is that the Discovery Institute has a right to defend its report here. It does not matter whether or not Casey Luskin is an attorney, whether or not he graduated from law school, whether or not he graduated from grade school, or whether or not he is "notable." It does not matter whether or not his rebuttals are valid, reasonable, or "scholarly." It does not matter whether or not Luskin and the rest of the DI practice what they preach (re: Peter Irons' accusation concerning the Montana Law Review article). It is ridiculous that the right of the DI to defend its report here should even be questioned here at all.

A summary would be unnecessary and superfluous. Luskin's rebuttal is only six pages long. It has its own summary. The Wikipedia text that is rebutted is identified -- this text itself summarizes the issues addressed by Luskin's article. There is no Wikipedia rule requiring that references be summarized, and such a rule would result in cluttering up Wikipedia with unnecessary summaries. Also, it may be impossible to reach any kind of consensus here on a summary of Luskin's article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 18:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

===================================================

Does it matter where this section is placed? Wikipedia articles can be cross-linked. Both the Discovery Institute article and the Kitzmiller v. Dover article would be appropriate locations. The DI article is an appropriate location because probably no one would have raised this copying issue if the DI had not raised it. Judge Jones' copying went unreported for nearly a year. People outside the DI probably noticed it -- e.g., the Dover defendants' attorneys from the Thomas More Law Center (the TMLC website has posted nothing about the case since the day after the decision) -- but said nothing. IMO since the section is here already, it might as well stay here. IMO Veritasjohn's summary of Luskin's article is good: "The Discovery Institute issued a rebuttal to criticism of the study, arguing that case law supports the policy that 'the verbatim or near verbatim adoption of a party's findings of facts is disapproved by courts' even if it is not prohibited." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 01:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

================================================

Veritasjohn said,
As I indicated above, other editors agreed that DI's rebuttal should be linked, and one asked for a summary. I'm willing to drop the summary and just end the sentence at "issued a rebuttal."

I was the one who proposed having no summary of the DI rebuttal, but I have changed my mind. I think your proposed summaries are good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 07:02, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

=======================================================

"I don't know if he has sought admission to the bar in other states"? How is that relevant? The Wikipedia article on the State Bar of California says, "California administers what is widely considered the nation's most difficult bar examination twice each year" [2], and Casey Luskin passed.

This section of the article cites the legal opinions of you and Ed Brayton, who are not even attorneys. Ed Brayton by his own admission is not even a college graduate (though I don't hold that against him). So if we are going to talk about credentials, then let's talk about them.

There is just no satisfying you people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.69 (talk) 05:55, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

=================================================

No, Filll and Odd Nature, you are the ones who have crossed the line. Veritasjohn's comments here were civil and reasonable. Filll initiated the personal attacks here with his statement, "veritasjohn, you are giving yourself away by your edits. Don't think I don't know who you are." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.117 (talk) 23:15, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

.

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I have since reversed my opinion on the overzealous censorship of certain wiki administrators since the Yecke article debacle(I still believe that your comments should have been censored, but since then, there have been questionable conduct on part of the wiki admins that amount to pure power-tripping), have you actually read Casey Lushkin's rebuttal?

Like you yourself, Larry, are prone to do, he attacks the characters of his opponents more-so than their actions, along with many accusations of zeal and activism, some of which is arguably unfounded. The arguments are still there, but it's kind of hard to sort through the personal attacks. Some portions of Jone's decision were paraphrased from plaintiff testimonies as indicated by examples given by Lushkin, but instead of addressing HOW this was procedurally questionable, Lushkin immediately goes on a rant of how each statement on ID presented by the plaintiffs were false, lies, untrue, whatever. The guy couldn't let it go that the faith-based theory he had been trying to push was declared legally unconstitutional, and it shows throughout the document. However, overall, I think the core of the argument was whether or not Lushkin really does officially represent the Discovery Institute in this matter.

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:33:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> While I have since reversed my opinion on the overzealous censorship of certain wiki administrators since the Yecke article debacle(I still believe that your comments should have been censored <<<<<<

Well, maybe I believe that your comments here should be censored. So what?

>>>>> but since then, there have been questionable conduct on part of the wiki admins that amount to pure power-tripping <<<<<

Coming from you, that is quite a damning condemnation of the Wickedpedians.

None of your objections to Luskin's rebuttal were raised on Wikipedia's Discovery Institute discussion page, and your objections are irrelevant here anyway. The fact that some people find Luskin's rebuttal to be unpersuasive does not justify not linking to it in the Wikipedia article.

>>>> I think the core of the argument was whether or not Lushkin really does officially represent the Discovery Institute in this matter. <<<<<

Why don't you let the DI decide that.

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ah, but therein lies the problem: legitimate rebuttal, or personal attack rant? And these points WERE raised in the wiki discussion, which I assumed at least you have read, unless they locked your IP to the point where you cannot even view the pages... or did you not read that as well?

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be WikiLawyered to death you'd need:

1) A Wikipedia account. Something Larry and now Bill Greene both lack since they were banned for chronically violating Wikipedia's policies.

2) A passing understanding of said policies. See #1.

Larry, Bill Greene (Profg), Moulton. Larry's blog is a veritable rogues gallery of aggressive Intelligent Design POV pushers and Wikipedia trolls.

Monday, January 14, 2008 4:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Alt-Anonymous said...

>>>>> but since then, there have been questionable conduct on part of the wiki admins that amount to pure power-tripping <<<<<

< Coming from you, that is quite a damning condemnation of the Wickedpedians. > (emphasis added)

Larry, how do you know who is speaking?

Monday, January 14, 2008 6:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Winston Smith said...

Larry, has anyone done more than you have to cast an aura of respectability on Wikipedia's censorship? You might have even put into doubt my credibility; congratulations.

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:17:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

"Aura of respectability"? haha. HAHAHA HAW HAW! ROTFLMAO!

You despicable dunghill, have you read Wickedpedia's Discovery Institute discussion page? And you call that "respectable censorship"?

May terrible hell make war on your spotted soul.

>>>>> You might have even put into doubt my credibility; <<<<<<

What in the hell is that supposed to mean?

You are just another piece of crap taking advantage of my no-censorship policy while ridiculing my opposition to Internet censorship.

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous driveled:

>>>>> To be WikiLawyered to death you'd need:

1) A Wikipedia account <<<<<<

Wrong, dunghill. You just need an IP address that isn't blocked by Wickedpedia -- something that is fairly easy to find.

Monday, January 14, 2008 8:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Winston Smith said...

< May terrible hell ... >

< What in the hell ... ? >

OK, which is it? Are you an authority on Hell or aren't you?

< ... ridiculing my opposition to Internet censorship. >

I was merely pointing out how you have facilitated IC. Unintended consequences etc. If you had more insight you could at least imagine the possibility of such.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:00:00 PM  
Blogger dobson said...

Bill Green clearly misunderstands wikipedia - he is upset because he has been forbidden from representing his pet theory as if it has any relevance to mainstream science. ID has made no impact in biology other than apparantly inspiring militants on both side of the argument to say silly things.

I note that there is no longer an article about Casey Luskin on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that the the article about him has been deleted on the grounds that he is simply not a notable person according to Wikipedia's long-established criteria.

Monday, February 04, 2008 10:55:00 AM  
Anonymous FResearcher said...

Excuse the offtopic post, but I need to post this here, since this ScienceApologist is accusing me of being this "Profg"...

So this is the Profg that ScienceApologist claims that is me?

Let's see: I'm a woman; more conservative than this Profg (unless this Profg is a Buchananite, I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye politically); a graphic designer and illustrator (yep, know CSS/XHTML and learning C++); and a Deist. I'll argue about Evolution as much as anyone else questioning the classification of humanoid fossils (as my interest in forensic anthropology draws me to it -- not to "ID" -- dummy).

So, ScienceApologist you're more paranoid than I thought!

BTW, it wouldn't even be hard that two folks in Augusta, GA not liking you (I don't know who this Profg is, but he doesn't even appear to be a native Augustan, which I am). Heck, it wouldn't be hard that over half the US wouldn't like you, if you were exposed for who you really are...

A prick.

Either way, caught you in yet another lie (claiming I'm someone else without zero evidence anyhow -- BTW, is your "scientific research" as loose with the facts?). Keep it up, you will just discredit yourself over and over and over as you become more unhinged.

Again, sorry about the intrusion, but needed to state this for our fellow Wiki "skeptic", and his merry gay band.

Ta ta...

Friday, August 29, 2008 8:45:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home